FOUNDATION TRUSTEES MEETING
OCTOBER
2002
--
Notes
on PHANA Portion (Oct 25-26, 2002)
1. PEOPLE
PRESENT/DOCUMENTS DISCUSSED
1.1
Present
Trustees: Ana Maria Gavazzi (President), Sonia Gluckman, Brian Stokes.
Foundation Office: Lisa
Willow
PHANA:
Roddy Duchesne
Visitors for parts of
meeting: Robert Buxbaum (Budget, Stategic Plan); Alan Saly (Web Site)
Telephone conference for a
portion of the meeting: Tom Hubbard (Web Site, Pathwork Press); Trustees,
Lisa and Roddy
1.2
Documents Discussed
2. ACTIONS/DECISIONS
TAKEN
2.1
PHANA/Foundation Agreement
Following
review and discussion of this agreement, Ana Maria signed it on behalf of the
Foundation. I signed on behalf of
PHANA.
2.2
Helper Training Meeting
I reviewed the purposes of
this meeting, including both its narrower, more concrete focus (Inter-training-program
dialogue on Helper training) and the bigger picture.
The bigger picture includes the potential for senior North American
leaders to become (in effect) a collegial coordinating body for the Pathwork
in
North America
. This coordination would be done
in consultation and cooperation with the Foundation.
More self-coordination and self-regulation at the continental level
would enable the Foundation to concentrate its scarce resources more
effectively on its core tasks (e.g. trademarks, copyright, translation,
editing of Guide materials, such as QAs) and on worldwide coordination of the
Pathwork.
The
Trustees expressed their support for the aims of this meeting.
Ana Maria said that she will attend this meeting if she can.
At this point, August 18-22 is open in her calendar, so the prospects
of her attending look good. The
Foundation will fund Ana Maria’s attendance but does not have the funds to
contribute to participants’ travel and accommodation expenses.
2.3
QAs
I explained why PHANA wishes
to distribute electronic copies of QAs to
PHANA members. PHANA needs to find
ways to make membership in PHANA more attractive.
One way to do this is to offer services that are either not available
to non-members or are available at a lower price to members than to
non-members. Members wish to have
access to a QA product that enables them to search the QAs
and to print out selections or entire QAs.
The
Foundation gave permission to PHANA to distribute electronic copies of QAs to
PHANA members. These QAs will be
“as is”, i.e. unedited, and will have an updated copyright statement.
The copyright statement will be the same as that in the 1996 Edition
and Unedited Lectures on the CD-ROM. It
will be made clear that the texts distributed by PHANA are not for
re-distribution. The reason for
these restrictions is that the Foundation intends to edit the QAs
and publish the edited texts. The
Foundation does not want the PHANA version to slide into filling the place
that should (later) be filled by the properly edited version.
Work on the longer-term editing project is at am early exploratory and
discussion stage. The editing
project might be a lengthy one, taking more than a year or two.
2.4
Foundation Web Site
The
Foundation selected a Foundation logo design.
This is a major step forward because the logo and its colors are
fundamental building blocks in the esthetic and graphic aspects of the design
of the new web site. The graphic
side of web site design has been held up while a decision was being taken on a
logo.
While excellent in conception
and quality, the home page design submitted by Category 4 was not approved as
a home page design, mostly because
it was felt that the design tended to over-emphasize Eva.
The Board agreed that the page submitted by Category 4 would be great
to include in a portion of the web site that provided information on Eva.
Category 4 will be asked to
submit a new home page design. The
desirability of a fast loading time for the home page was also noted..
In the teleconference, I
noted that the PHANA Members Directory and Register will be transferred as
soon as possible to a PHANA section of the new Foundation web site being
created by Category 4 under Tom Hubbard’s direction.
2.5
Barbara Brennan Invitation
PHANA
previously drafted a letter for the Pathwork Foundation President’s
signature, inviting Barbara Brennan to become a member of PHANA.
This letter was never signed or sent.
I will resubmit this text for
signature and sending to Barbara Brennan.
3. DISCUSSION
ITEMS
3.1
Affiliate Agreement
Papers for the meeting
included a draft Affiliate Agreement put together by Arthur Larrabee and
Louise Stevenson. While the text
is an excellent one, it states only in general terms that Affiliates will pay
annual fees to the Foundation. As
the text currently stands, it does not enable individual US Affiliates to
calculate the total dollar amount that they will be required to pay to the
Foundation.
I reiterated my previously
expressed recommendation that Foundation estimate the annual dollar amounts
that it wishes/needs to collect from US Regions.
If it turns out that Helpers who are Affiliate members are required to
pay a sizeable mandatory annual fee to the Foundation, these Helpers may
withdraw from membership in PHANA. The
higher the mandatory Foundation fee, the more likely Helpers will choose not
to renew their membership in PHANA, whose
membership and fees are voluntary.
Since PHANA has no budget leeway at present, this could result in a
serious financial problem for PHANA. If
the falling away of PHANA membership was large, PHANA’s credibility as a
professional association would also be compromised, since PHANA would
represent too small a proportion of Pathwork Helpers to be credible..
Another consideration is the
manner in which fees are collected . It
may be preferable to collect both Foundation and PHANA affiliate fees in one
transaction, rather than collecting each fee separately.
I also expressed the opinion
that it will likely work best if the Foundation meets with senior Regional
representatives, rather than solely distributes documents for comment and then
signature. A possible venue for
this Foundation/Regional “Presidents’ meeting” would be in Sevenoaks
around the time of the Helper Training meeting.
3.2
Chapters
The Board considered a report
submitted by its Chapters Committee (Sahra Aschenbach, Ann Norfolk, Brain
O’Donnell). The Board felt that
its discussion was not doing justice to the issues addressed in the report.
Brian Stokes offered to summarize the report to facilitate further
discussion of the issues. His
offer was accepted.
I recommended that the Board
pursue an approach that avoids tying Helper training policy in any rigid
fashion to policies that define organizational structures, such as Affiliates,
Chapters, Groups. I recommended
that training policy be articulated as a separate policy.
As an example, I said that in my view ALL proposed new Helper trainings
should submit proposals for approval, regardless of the Pathwork
organizational structure that exists in the geographic location in which the
training is to be offered. -- even if this organizational structure is a
Region/Affiliate. This approach is
necessary to ensure that new Helper trainings adopt approaches and standards
that are reasonably consistent with existing Helper trainings.
3.3
PHANA Concept
The PHANA portion of the
meeting commenced with a discussion of the nature of PHANA.
I conceptualized PHANA as a wheel with three spokes, corresponding to
three levels of service: (1) Individual Helper level
(2) Regional/Chapter/Group level (3) Worldwide level.
I noted the main initial existing/projected services at each level:
At the first level the
principal existing/projected services are the Register of Pathwork Helpers,
the Pathwork Teachers Helper Project and
the provision of web services assisting members to publicize their practices
and themselves. These services
correspond to the 3 most wanted services as expressed in Helper surveys in
1999-2000. In addition, PHANA
Council would like to distribute electronic QAs to members, probably in the
form of CD-Rs.
At the second level, PHANA
seeks to promote dialogue and cooperation among Helper training programs and
projects a Helper Training Meeting in summer 2003, most likely in Sevenoaks
within the
August 18-22, 2003
time window.
At the third level, the above
PHANA services contribute to maintaining the value of the Pathwork trademark
and to supporting the Foundation’s worldwide coordination role through (a)
Making support of the Foundation’s copyright and trademark policies a
condition of PHANA membership, (b) the
Register of Pathwork Helpers fulfills a basic trademark function by
identifying approved practitioners., (c) Action towards maintaining consistent
training standards also fulfills a basic trademark function, (d) Interfacing
with Helper Associations in other parts of the world as these are formed
supports the Foundation’s worldwide coordinating role.
In discussion, Sonia Gluckman
and Robert Buxbaum both expressed the view that more needs to be done to
foster taking the Pathwork beyond what Sonia identified as the “therapeutic
model” Pathwork. She used this
term to refer to the traditional model of Pathwork Helpership, namely giving
one-on-one sessions, leading lecture study groups, workshops and trainings
(e.g. Pathwork Transformation Programs). There
is need to bring the Pathwork into all fields of human endeavor, for example,
work in prisons, work in education, with children, health services, business,
politics, organizational development, theatre, the military, and so forth.
One way to go in the
direction advocated by Sonia and Robert would be for one or more training
programs to adopt a two-track Helper training model.
For example, NYRP at one time had a two-track Helper training model in
which all trainees had a common curriculum for the first two years of their
4-year training. At the end of the
first two years, trainees made a choice. Those
that wished to practice in the traditional way (e.g. giving sessions) elected
to do two further years of “Helpership Development”.
Those that did not wish to practice in the traditional way elected to
do a two further years of “Leadership Development.”
Roddy Duchesne, October 27,
2002
Top
Home Page
Reports & Minutes
